It has been well-known that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has insisted that there will be no impeachment of President Bush during her term. Activists, however, have reported that John Conyers may be considering confronting Pelosi and starting such proceedings after a meeting in his office. They have started a campaign to show Conyers that he will have the support of the Democratic base, even if he lacks the support of Democratic leadership.
The meeting and campaign is detailed here.
This follows Mukasey’s bizarre rationalization of why he will not allow a criminal investigation into the Bush torture program. Click here
The Democratic leadership has been helping the White House behind the scenes to block any serious investigation of torture to avoid triggering an impeachment investigation and the disclosure of Democratic knowledge of the torture program. Conyers, however, is the wild card. Any impeachment move would be a direct confrontation with Pelosi. He would be lionized by Democratic activists, who have grown unhappy with Pelosi. Indeed, it may be difficult for Pelosi to survive such a public fight and to secure the votes needed next Congress to be renewed as Speaker. It is worth watching.
I’m less concerned with actually bringing Bush and Cheney before the entire Senate for trial than I am thoroughly examining and establishing the depth of their contempt for the Constitution so it cannot happen in the future. We’re less than a year from ending this national nightmare of the Bush administration and there is certainly the temptation to just get through it and move one. However, unless we publicly acknowledge their long list of misuses and abuses of power, the country will be vulnerable to see it repeated by an administration with less scruples than this one.
I agree with rcampbell that setting a precedent that the citizens of the US don’t tolerate the total disregard of the Constitution is “Job One.”
There are some conspiracy theorists (sometimes I’m among them) who say that an additional benefit will be the assurance that there will actually be an election in November (a fair one would be good, too) and the Bush Administration will actually depart in a year.
“..an administration with less scruples than this one.”
{{{shudder}}}
Speaker Pelosi has, and not in an unprecedented manner, managed to steal animus from the jaws of victory by uttering five words in an act of Constitutional myopia and unmitigated gall. “Impeachment is off the table.”
The day she made this unfortunate statement she revealed a void in strategic and tactical thinking, that I personally believe, sucked the wind out of the mid-grounders. Certainly the “hang em’ in the streets” crowd were booing and whining, but they represents a lust for vitriol and morbid retaliation. But the more conservative Democratis leaning center and the more liberal Republicans, many of whom that refuse to be stuffed in a blue or red box, were nothing short of stunned when Nancy Pelosi announced her intention to publicly announce the neutering of a fundamental responsibility of the House.
Indeed, while covered partially with a sweet candy coating – the Democratic party has a major divide growing. The point in time that they should be building strong relationships – they have allowed the Presidential race to impede them.
The Republicans converged on point behind their leadership, even when they were falling like flies. Not because of any particularly good policy, but because tactically, it was relevant. The Democratic leadership, on the other hand, is uninspiring and illogical. If not for a vociferous constituency – many of the Democratic professional cake eaters would be just as happy to get to retirement in their political internment camp.
Conyers was sipping at the Kool-Ade while Steny Hoyer was filling glasses, but apparently, he’s back to having green tea with Dennis Kucinich, and laying off the high-fat diet. Kucinich already faces a difficult re-election in Ohio, because of his riff with Democratic leaders on impeachment and Iraq. His local Dems are working hard – but not a word from Big Town. They intend on teaching him a lesson – and just like they taught Paul Hackett a lesson – if the Democratic leadership has to get a Republican elected to teach one of their fallen a lesson – they will.
SadButTrue:
I wrote that line with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. We’ve seen administrations and elected officials with slightly less integrity than this cadre, but those had names like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe, Amin, Duvalier, etal. It took about 15 minutes to talk myself into the final tame version that I ultimately posted.
JT, may I? Or would you prefer to go ahead?
OR perhaps we should wait…
Patty C,
enlightenment requested on your post
DW
Ordinarily, I am known for my ‘wooooooooohooooooooo’ing’ with nine (9) ‘o’s, in repeated apparent violations of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which allows only six (6) ‘o’s – as you may recall.
So I was just asking…:)
WAIT!!!!
Setting aside the obvious probative value that impeachment hearings would have in uncovering some of the worst constitutional abuses this country has ever seen, politically, will this even happen? Probably not.
Even if Conyers started his investigation tomorrow, there is not enough time to begin a thorough investigation. Conyers only have 5 months to get the job done. After July, nothing further is going to happen in the House, unless Conyers holds his committee during the August recess. You can bet that is NOT going to happen when the Democrats are SO close to adding to their majority in the House.
As hopeful as it sounds, it seems like this is not going to have any real effect.
I don’t care if the impeachment hearings are completed in time. I want the country to see that their are consequences for breaking the law and torturing people. After Bush and Cheney leave office, maybe criminal charges can be brought, as well as war crime charges on the international level. I think we should add Mukasey to that list as well.
Bravo, Rafflaw.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says impeachment must culminate in success or that it must be concluded within the session of Congress that starts it.
At issue is whether we are still a system of constitutional mandates or one of political expediencies.
Each congressman must consult his or her conscience and see where their ultimate constitutional loyalties lie.
According to Conyers’ office – there are few issues getting conflated. First, Pelosi’s ‘five infuriating words’ that has led people to believe caused him to drag his feet; and, the time issues as previously stated herein (which are easily manipulated in an impeachment proceeding to further push meaningful public disclosure past dates of usefulness)
On the other hand – Rep. Conyers is not bound by dates if he proceeds in a criminal investigation that does not tie his hands with impeachment and removal of office as an ultimate goal.
When his people explain the distinction – and his approach – it isn’t nearly as frustrating as hearing we can’t have their head’s on sticks before Labor Day.
Dear Prof. Turley,
Thanks for all you’ve done over the last several years. I still remember the great testimony you gave to Conyers at his basement hearing in 2006, when the spying revelations first came out.
http://www.archive.org/download/illegal_spying/nsa_hearing1-turley.mp3
Is there any chance you would ever consider running for Congress? If you live in Maryland the deadline may have passed, otherwise it’s probably still possible for you to run this year. You don’t need a million bucks because you have the truth behind you. And with that comes a million activists willing to work for you.
Every American that knows about these abuses of power must ensure there is a real Candidate running to oppose the current enabler serving in their district. You know, as per your testimony, that this Congress has not upheld their oath of office. It is our duty, to America’s children, to replace them with Real Americans that will uphold the Constitution.
If not you, who?
If not now, when?
Please consider what your candidacy would do for America. And if not, perhaps you could plug the idea and/or website http://www.PeaceCandidates.com during your next appearance with Keith on Countdown
I’ve pondered why Democrats refuse to pursue impeachment, with obvious cause in plain view, while Republicans in the 1990s gleefully impeached Clinton on the flimsiest of premises. And I believe I know the answer.
First, I think the Democratic leadership believes impeachment ultimately backfired on the GOP with support for President Clinton actually growing as the impeachment actions got nastier. I think the Democratic leaders see it as a risky political proposition that has less potential political payoff as we draw closer to the 2008 elections. I think they fear that impeachment might energize and motivate a conservative base that is currently quite demoralized and subdued. I think they wish to avoid poking the “radcon monster” with an impeachment stick.
Secondly, I don’t believe that the Democratic leadership feels a strong grassroots push on impeachment. At least not strong enough to merit movement on the issue. Unlike the radical Republicans in Congress, and their radcon radio cheerleaders, who embraced impeachment as a part of their “tear down the government” agenda, Democrats actually respect the institutions of government and tread carefully to respect the same. We are not Republicans and shouldn’t act like Republicans. Democrats are better than that.
But that brings up the question of how can you respect our government and at the same time tolerate the Constitutional excesses of the Bush Administration? The “prevent future abuses” argument that has been discussed here. I think the Dem leadership feels the best way to prevent future Constitutional excesses, is to make sure the radical Republicans don’t capture control of our government again. They don’t want to “double down” on impeachment at the risk of jeopardizing our party’s current favorable position with the nation’s voters. They believe that we can make Congressional gains and win the White House without messing with impeachment and taking the risk that this action backfires. And I think they are likely right.
My only conditions regarding this choice of path, is that we fully pursue empowerment of Congressional subpoenas to compel Bushites to testify under oath. That’s a balance of power issue that impeachment can remedy quickly, as there is no executive privilege right in impeachment investigations. So if we aren’t going to impeach, we must find another way to enforce Congressional subpoenas, or the Legislative branch has abandoned all hope of meanful oversight of the Executive branch.
My second condition is if we win the White House in November, then in 2009, we completely, fully, and publicly investigate the excesses of the Bush Administration as an example to future American governments. I can wait if political expediency dictates. But it’s something that must ultimately be done, like the Church Hearings on the CIA in the 1970s. We can’t sweep this stuff under the rug forever. But I might agree that the timing could be better with a stronger Congressional majority and a Democratic President.
“Lesser Evil” your position is most interesting. I’m pretty mush in favor of burning down the house and impeach both Cheney and Bush but timing is everything.
If I was sure that a real investigation would take place after the Democrats win then your position is well taken. However, I already can smell ALL THE NOBLE REASONS why the country must move on and NOT engage in the past!
Even after Nixon got his — he was pardoned!
Even after a new Democratic President takes office will that President open up the Presidential papers and government documents so the public could see what was really going on? My guess is NO! National security and all that will be the excuse. Why? Simple. It’s a closed club. We have a one party system and that system is MONEY. The Democrats are as covered in blood for their participation in the last eight years as are the Republicans.
I fear and KNOW that even if the Democrats win it will be business as usual.
And that saddens me a great deal.
I read an interesting article recently that pointed out that recent history shows whenever a party moves to impeachment (against Nixon & Clinton), that party is rewarded in the next election. And when a party passes on making a stand on impeachment (Reagan), they are punished in the following election. Of course that doesn’t mean the pattern will prevail, but it is interesting that if the American people deem the party in power passes on their obligations for politcal considerations, they pay the price.
So the question becomes whether it’s too-little-too-late or better late than never. Personally I think whenever invertabrates show some spine it is a good thing.
People will wonder, even years from now, why the American public was so quiestient, so easily manipulated, so easily duped. Why can’t America see a moronic brain damaged loser for what it is. Have we sunk so low? If the obvious facts are sitting there, just go with it. Letting bank robbers out of the bank never works. Ignoring crimes???? Since when has that worked? These criminals should never be allowed to get away. You would be suprised how little support they really have, it’s all an illusion, just like from any thug.
The failure to impeach Bush/Cheney will be a green light, and possibly a protective blanket, for the next administration to commit whatever crimes it wants to.
The Republican wing will be ever so grateful to future Democrats for not impeaching the Republican leaders, and when favors are owed then the fox will certainly raid the chicken coop.
This “pay-back” scenario is likely WHY the Dems are not proceeding with impeachment – they are eying the gravy train ahead.
The Americn public has not been quiescent. By all appearances, however, we have been largely ignored and/or unheard-until now.
It only appears as though we have been manipulated. Our elected officials, and a generally cool-headed constituency geared toward the democratic process, are the only things that stand between us and immediate resolution of the issues that concern us – most notably, those responsible.
That is why, in my view, is is SO important to proceed, during THIS term, with any and all pending criminal investigations – from FISA/NSA, Torture/Waterboarding, the US Attorney Firing Scandal, to No-Bid, Overseas, Iraq/Afghanistan, Military Contracts
- including Halliburton and Blackwater, to name a couple.
It is also why “they” would prefer matters do not proceed. And there lies the rub.
This time, I wouldn’t look for trends stemming from any past Presidency. Throughout history you come across sentiments expressing
that theirs were “extraordinary times’ and, now, ours is one of
those extraordinary times, as well.
Pelosi made a calculated move to take impeachment “off the table” prior to the 2006 elections so it wouldn’t become a distraction for the Dems to defend during the election believing that this issue hurt the Dems more than it helped them. As long as impeachment is considered a political hot potato I don’t see Dem leadership wanting to do anything to upset their election chances again in 2008 by bringing it up. I have heard good arguments that the Kuchinich impeachment resolution wasn’t that carefully crafted and from what I read of it I would agree as it seemed to make some wild accusations that even if true would be hard to prove. That said, I can’t understand why just holding some hearings to see what’s there would present problems for Dems in the election. It seems to me this represents a sale’s deficit on the part of the Dems – an ability to articulate the correct position. What also is a concern is there might not be enough time now before Bush leaves office to get a real investigation off the ground knowing how easy it will be for BushCo to stonewall attempts at discovery with every request for information being litigated to the max under executive privilege or state’s secrets, etc.
That said, I have always wondered why the House Dems won’t consider censure resolutions of both Bush and Cheney? Why not at least start with the least offensive measure and try and get support for that before moving up the ladder for impeachment.
I think every sane person realizes there are plenty of good grounds to impeach both Bush and Cheney and in order to repair the damage they have done, this would be the right way to proceed. Unfortunately we don’t have enough Dems willing to risk their political careers in order to do what’s best for the country. While my web site continues to urge impeachment and support every effort that pushes for this, I think the window to begin this might already be closed or now part of the 2008 election strategies.
That said we all should be making sure the Dem candidate for President and those running for Congress and the Senate assure everyone they would support an independent investigation of Bush’s administration with intent of indicting and prosecuting any of them for crimes once a Dem becomes President. RJ Crane
When Bush and Cheney are finally imprisoned let’s hope Ms. Pelosi accompanies them. I wonder how she’ll look in orange.
Get rid of the current democratic leadership and replace them with true democrats, progressive democrats. Democrats who will NOT support republicans or vote like a republican.
Vote them out! Replace Nancy Pelosi with Edward Kennedy or Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich, etc.
Impeachment is a remedy not political revenge. It is the only way we can restore our system of checks and balances. If the democratic leadership were involved they need to be held accountable, too.
The minute Pelosi said “impeachment is off the table” she overstepped her authourity. It is beyond me why Pelosi took impeachment off the table because by doing so it guarantees Bush & Cheney free rite of passage. Meaning no matter what they do they will not be held accountable.
If Pelosi had stated something to the effect that the language in the Constitution is unequivocal regarding impeachment, but at present nothing leads her to believe impeachment is necessary adding notwithstanding they would follow the facts wherever they lead, etc… hence if merited then appropriate actions would be pursued. However she didn’t, so as it stands now, there is no incentive for Bush and/or Cheney to keep within the bounds of the law.
Churchill stated that ‘one of the first strengths of democracy is holding leaders to account for their decisions…’ Until the public acknowledges that the rule of law is meant for everyone, Bush and Cheney will continue abusing their powers and breaking the law without accountability.
“An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for,” James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 41. As America nears the 229th anniversary of its independence, it is well to recall Madison’s words and to remember what the Founders fought for is best described in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, which remains the single most important statement on the nature of our republic.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness.
Jefferson went on wisely to warn that long-established governments must not be changed for “light and transient reasons.” He added, however, that the documented record of a government’s “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing … a design to reduce them under an absolute Despotism” creates for its citizens a right and a duty “to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The “Despotism” Americans face today is not that of George III’s Britain, nor is it the expanding Northern commercial and social juggernaut the Secessionists despised and feared. No, Americans are confronted and oppressed by an “absolute Despotism” of incompetence, cowardice, and self-interest, a despotism controlled by an aristocracy of male and female life-time office servers who have forgotten that they are hired help, not demigods. These men and women care only for the perpetuation of their power and sinecures and only act to preserve their power. They care not a jot about protecting Americans and their land.
Lew Rockwell
Start Impeachment hearings the day after election day. That way, there’ll be no blowback because it’s too late for the “press” or the Republicans to destroy the Dem’s for election day. If the Dem’s win the Presidency, start the hearings. If the Dem’s lose the Presidency, start the hearings. Either way, it makes sense to do it then. Stringing up the traitors should only need about a month because all the work of evidence gathering for Impeachment has already been done by bloggers.
JT, they are coming out of the woodwork! All these new bloggers with their nuanced opinions and requests for your expert Constitutional opinion.
I’m glad you are layin’ low, although I think I speak for everybody – “we miss your face”…
USC Title 18, chapter 1, 4, misprision of felony
This net reaches wide and deep.
j’accord, Patty C.
But since JT MAY be on some kind of short-list for some appointment POSSIBLY, maybe he has to avoid creating a paper trail that could be used against him!!!
One has to consider such things…..
I can’t imagine what kind of deal Pelosi has made with Bush in order to keep him and his gang of criminals out of hot water. Maybe it was a trade — We’ll let the 2006 congressional elections go to the dems if you don’t persue our texas mafia.
Once again what the people of this country think and feel doesn’t matter at all. In order for us all to heal, move on, and take pride in our country we need to see justice reign down on these criminals. Wouldn’t it make current and future politicians see that they need to follow the same rules of law as the people they represent are expected to? It’s difficult to believe that a blue dress with semen stains was ever worse than anything Bush Co has managed to F-up. Impeachment would be the beginning — war crime tribunals would be the next step.
Also why is Tom Delay and Ken Blackwell showing up on MSNBC occasionally for commentary? Oh yeah, I saw Ann Coulter there the other day too! What’s up with that?
“j’accord, Patty C.
But since JT MAY be on some kind of short-list for some appointment POSSIBLY, maybe he has to avoid creating a paper trail that could be used against him!!!
One has to consider such things…..
”
***
DW, that would be dandy-IF HE DECIDES TO LEAVE US, ALONE, IN THE DARK
-FOREVER AND EVER!!!
I thought he would like to know ‘we noticed’, is all…
Well, I was being a bit facetious there, but you know how I would love to see him wading through IFP’s up there on the Court, and giving a much needed counterbalance to that charming rascal AS. We MUST get a JT or his equivalent up on the Court when the next vacancy comes open (and since that vacancy is going to come from the ‘better half’ of the current court, it is all the more imperative.
But you’re right, his absence here is noticeable and I am beginning to worry a bit!!
At least you’re still here holding down the fort.
Far be it from us not to welcome the new folks and remark on their contributions!! Starting at the top:
BEN FRANK–please don’t mention elective office for JT. He is destined for SCOTUS!
LESSER EVIL: nice post, but the contempt citations already in train may lead to impeachment ultimately, and its about time the Dems stopped political tea leaf reading and started honoring their oaths.
TUBULAR SOCK: Such dispair and cynicism! Maybe the Dems may surprise you yet-especially the House. I can tell you that there is probably a lot of emotion tightly bottled up on the left side of the aisle and as we used to say “payback is a medivac!”
GOGONZO: Right as rain on the facts. Good observations.
MITCH: You too, but “moronic brain damaged loser”? Why don’t you say what you REALLY think?
LESTER WEEVAL: With a name like that you must be from my part of the country! Anyway, I don’t think there is a reciprocity like that operating. The GOP in fact has waged such a wide-ranging attack on the Dems for the last 8 years that it would astound you. It even reaches to intimidating traditional corporate donors to the party. Its a fight to the death I am afraid. Or rather a fight for survival as a viable political institution.
RJ CRANE: Great post. censure is an option, but as a last option if other events don’t work out. USC Title 18, chapter 1, 4, misprision of felony
TOM: What has the poor Speaker done to earn your wrath?
MAXIMAHEART: Senators Kennedy and Feingold probably appreciate your support, but will have to stay in their current chamber. Kucinich, though is an excellent choice!
SERENA1313: Great post! Good thoughts.
CHABUKA: Anyone who quotes from Federalist 41 is a friend of mine! I was with you and admiring your contribution until you veered off and attacked the career people. They are definitely not the problem!!! Rather look at the mid management/asst director level of the cake where GOP loyalists with minimal or indeed anti-qualifications have been installed in hordes. This is where the mischief has been. Ever wonder why the GOP has been trying to weaken the whistleblower protections?
Ok, I’m worn out. welcome everybody!
Impeaching Chimpy and Cheney has another benefit. It makes them ineligible for their pension.
I thought, too, watching Rep Conyers being interviewed by Rob Kall a few days ago, that he was on the edge of beginning impeachment hearings.
Wow, DW, I’m impressed!
Thanks for your support!
It’s not Valentines Day anymore,
but you are still a Sweetie!
First things first: impeach Pelosi and Reid for violation of Constitutional duties. Second: Impeach and indict Bush, Cheney, et al. Third: trust Conyers like you would trust Spector. Fourth: actions speak louder than words. Question: how do you go about impeaching Pelosi and Reid?
George Johnson: not only does it keep them from their pensions, but it also bars them from holding any “office of trust.”
Now, I don’t expect Bush or Cheney to be asked to come back in any serious advisory capacity in future administrations, but you do have to wonder about the equally incompetent and constitutionally ignorant underlings of the Executive Department.
I don’t feel the problem is we’re shooting for too much impeachment–I feel the problem is we’re settling for not enough of it!
Pelosi originaly said impeachment was of the table as a gesture of good will. She extended the olive branch to the republicans to show them she was going to put party politics aside. Too try to work with them. She wanted to get several things accomplished. The repugthugins took the olive branch and shoved it right up Lady Justice’s assets. Then they took the sword of Justice and plunged it through the heart of Democracy. They then twisted it by staying silent after buSh called the U.S Constitution “just a God damned piece of paper”. They have been, and continue to treat this unique and powerful document, that lists the rights of the poeple, worse than a piece of used toilet paper.
Pelosi’s long ago jesture to “reach across the isle” was futile, and was taken as a sign of weakness by the repuplicans. The ultimate decision to impeach or not to impeach, can never be made by just a single representative.
IMO, Pelosi must be neck deep in the transgressions of this corrupt and indifferent executive administration. It is beyond my comprehension that she, or any patriotic person, after 9/11, could give buSh even the time of day. Whether by incompetence, neglect or intentional, 9/11 is buShes responsibility. He shouldn’t even to be allowed to wash the toilets in the White House.
There needs to be an investigation. Impeachment hearings need to commence. It is a known fact, buSh was warned more than 40 times something catastrophic and sensational was going to happen that month. He was privy to so much info and detail, they new exactly how and the exact week. Multiple warnings were sent and received through high priority top government channels. Sent by several different heads of state. Germany, Russia, even Saudia Arabia, to name just a few. We all know to this date we have never had a “real” investigation of 9/11.
Since before 9/11 (unlawful wire taps) buSh and his administration have commited so many egregious unlawful acts against this nation and the world. We literally haven’t been able to keep track. They should be investigated under the RICO act. Continue calling and writng congress, especially to thank them when they DO, do the right thing.
Well, that’s enough recall from me. I’m starting to get palpitations thinking about the perpetual screwing we are being made to endure.
Still hopefull, Masi…..
I forgot to include this reference. you will have to add the dubya dubya dubya .cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0601german#a0601german
“It has been well-known that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has insisted that there will be no impeachment of President Bush during her term”
When did she say that? She said impeachment is off the table, but oversight would continue and where that leads, we would have to see. The first part of the statement is commonly quoted — the second half is studiously ignored.
It’s likely that Cheney could be impeached. If the desire is to impeach the President, that will scuttle the effort. If the effort is restricted to Cheney, I believe that the Speaker will let it go through. The contempt citations are a positive sign in that direction.
Why, thanks, gracious Patty C!
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
When it comes to incisive comment,
Patty C, is better than you (and you, and you)!
Roses are red,
The stems are green,
When it comes to ipse dixit bluster,
DW is an unstoppable cut-and-paste machine!
I do hope JT is delegating the site’s maintainence and taking a nice out-of-town vacation or some such!
Again welcome to the influx of new posters. As a fellow poster I appreciate your energy and enthusiasm.
We all need to add to our sophistication about how the government is working.
The affairs between the branches are conducted by representatives and officials who are harried, overworked, and basically operating in a perpetual fog. They are expected to be experts on everything from pre-stressed concrete fracture under load, to fish counts on obscure waterways. To alleviate that fog, they call on experts to help them. The Executive branch for legal matters has its OLC, the Congress has its CRS.
If you want to really know what is concerning both branches, what they are worried about, what actions they are contemplating, what defenses they are readying, study the reports they request from their respective “law firms”.
We have talked about the OLC and the declassified memos, but lets look at the Congressional Reporting Service and their “product”.
Here are some topics the 110th Congress (the democrats, my friends) have sought clarification on and it is very illustrative:
Direct Assaults Against Presidents, Presidents-Elect, and Candidates, updated Jan 7 2008
Perjury Under Federal Law: a Brief Overview, updated Dec 27, 2007
Obstruction of Congress: a Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities, Dec 27, 2007 (Same day as supra!)
Obstruction of Justice: an Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities, Dec 27, 2007
Proposals to Reform “Holds” in the Senate, updated Dec 20, 2007 (we know who prompted this!)
Federal Tort Claims Act, updated Dec 1l, 2007
Congress’s Contempt Power: a Sketch, Aug 1, 2007
Congress’s Contempt Power: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure, July 24th 2007 [PLEASE READ THIS ONE, IF YOU WILL]
Recess Appointments Made by President George W Bush, January 20, 2001-June 4, 2007 updated June 14 2007
and so forth and so on.
Here’s the website for your further research:
http://opencrs.com/
No one responded to this invitation so I will trot out some more significant ones:
“No Confidence” Votes and Other Forms of Congressional Censure of Public Officials, June 11, 2007
Presidential Advisers’ Testimony Before Congressional Committees: an Overview, updated April 10, 2007 [NOTE DATE]
Statute of Limitations in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview, updated April 9, 2007 [DATE]
and lastly, my favorite:
Congressional Investigations of the Department of Justice, 1920-2007: History, Law, and Practice, October 3, 2007
Draw the appropriate conclusions.
Thanks, DW – the Energizer Bunny’s got nothin’ on you!
I think you have assigned everyone’s President’s Weekend reading
- the subject titles alone ’speak volumes’, as it were
p.s. How ’bout that expired PAA, huh? huh?
Good riddance to it, says we!
Hi Patty C,
Re-reading my posts in light of your kind words, I note with a lot of chagrin I misled everybody: The Congressional Research Service, not the Congressional Reporting Service.
I am a living errata sheet!
Also, unlike the OLC, the CRS researches EVERYTHING imaginable. With 2000+ reports a year, its not unlikely they’ve done an analysis of the bricks in the chimneys of your neighborhood at some time or other!
The “Investigating the DOJ” report makes for interesting reading. Not because it reveals any current malfeasance–it doesn’t and it was not commissioned to. In my uninformed opinion, the epi-center of the criminal behavior in this administration was centered in the DOJ. The OVP had its role to play also, and outrages at Labor and Interior are still below the radar, but if you have to pick an agency: start at DOJ.
And then work your way back up. Felony crimes were possibly committed and left unreported. A very ugly picture and one with no precedent to my limited knowledge.
Basically the Administration did the legal equivalent of trying to raise itself in the air by pulling on its own shoes. They would have their house lawyers declare something legal then go ahead and act under color of not law, but the advice of legality.
When their advisors balked, they would simply replace them with more compliant models. Utterly ruthless, and the greatest threat to the rule of law this country has ever seen.
There was a deal made between Bush and Pelosi in May 2006, to take impeachment off the table. Both made public statements. Many other incumbents backed off. Jerry McNerney, then a PDA candidate for Congress Dist 11, had solicited the help of Impeach Bush-Cheney for phone banking in February, which we gave. In May, he asked us to take his name off our literature (we were listing his campaign as one of our projects). McNerney was the only PDA Democrat out of 23 to be elected; the rest were knocked out of the primary by DLC money.
During the ‘06 campaign, the campaign was used to justify taking impeachment off the table- so as not to antagonize moderates. Once the Democrats won by an overwhelming majority, that excuse no longer held water. Still, within a few days after become Speaker and Chair of Judiciary, Pelosi and Conyers hastened to assure us that impeachment was still off the table. The deal still held, and Bush and Cheney are STILL being protected- they can do anything they want, with impunity, and they do.
What’s the tradeoff? What do the Dems get in return? Biden hinted recently that it was/is an agreement not to start war with Iran, when he said that impeachment hearings would begin at once if they did that. Maybe it’s a promise not to impose martial law and suspend elections. Maybe it’s blackmail of many individual Congresspeople. Whatever- the reasons given simply don’t hold water.
It’s obvious that the way out of Iraq is through impeachment. The way to prevent an attack on Iran is impeachment. The way to address global warming is impeachment. Etc, etc, etc. As long as Bush and Cheney are in office, they will block all good moves and continue to pursue policies that enrich themselves and their superrich friends at the expense of the rest of us.
And Congress is complicit. There’s a protection racket going on. There’s no other plausible explanation.
So we need a clean sweep of Congress- see http://www.newbroomcoalition.org.
Peace,
Carol Wolman
Green Candidate for Congress
CA District 1
Cochair, Impeach Bush-Cheney
deeply worried, for the Democrats to surprise me they would have to do something.
I’m not holding my breath in anticipation!
It shouldn’t be too difficult to remember the interim election and all the hype about change if the Dems won. And by god the American public actually came out and voted them in. And then?
Well, the Dems can’t not fund the imperial troops. Oh, a surge? Oh yes, oh yes! We can’t look weak! Oh, the Dems can’t not pass anything that has the word terror in it. Oh goodness, the Dems can’t not pass the FISA Bill without being sure that ATT gets covered. Thank you so much Diane Feinstein. Just how often has Diane bent over and taken one for the “gipper”? Gee, censure Diane? NO, recall the bitch!
If the House comes back after break and really takes a stand it will be a first. Do I have hope? No. But I’d love to be wrong on this one.
And then there is NO GUTS NANCY. She’s the leader? Give me a break!
Oh, we can’t impeach, it might upset Bush’s lackeys and running dogs and then we might not get elected.
Well, I believe there is a huge dormant sector of Americans that are looking for change in this country and to date what we get is business as usual.
Look at the line up!
HILLARY. Hanging out with Rupert Murdoch? Bill running up to Kennebunkport to play with Daddy Bush? Gosh, I hope Bill is investing correctly, The Carlyle Group anyone? Hillary votes for the imperialist war, she votes to fund the war, she votes for the Patriot Act, she refused to filibuster the Military Commissions Act which fundamentally overturned habeas corpus and even Ann Colter is leaning toward her! Now that is spooky.
And as President she would keep the imperial army in Iraq for the same 100 years that McCain is talking about but only to protect America’s vital interests! You may want to check out America’s vital interests in Iraq when you get time but to save you time – - -it’s everything. The corporate class has bought up(perhaps stole is more apt) Iraq and all of its infrastructure, factories and banks. And soon the oil will be taken as well. What do the Iraq people get? At the moment, not even jobs because Corporate Ownership has sub contracted all the work to “cheeper” labor from outside Iraq. OH JOY! Now where did I put my explosive belt again? Looks like Business as usual to me.
THEN BARACK. He makes a big deal that he didn’t support the war but not from the high moral principal that pre-emptive war is wrong but from the frame that he didn’t think that it would work!
Somehow what has been lost in the debate is pre-emptive war is double speak for aggression. Which in my way of thinking requires the troops to be arrested and held in The Hague as war criminals. Along with a very long list of the administration and Congress! Only in an ideal world would that ever come to pass.
What Americans have missed is that we ARE the bad guys.
With Obama you are not going to see the troops come home either. He is right there in front with McCain and Clinton in threatening Iran. And Obama will attack Pakistan if the intelligence is such that we could get Osama!
Osama-Obama—Obama-Osama, there has got to be a rap song in that somewhere.
Obama votes for all the military funding and wants to add 92,000 more troops to the military to keep our military the best in the world!
Sounds like business as usual to me.
And then to add to Barack’s business as usual stance, like Clinton he voted against the Military Commissions Act but then turned around and refused to filibuster the Act to prevent it from becoming law.
And to cap it for me, Obama is being advised by Anthony Lake and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Now those guys should take the wind out of the sails of anyone who tries to frame Obama as a candidate of HOPE and CHANGE. Sure he is!
As for McCain, well he’s too white! Look at him. Do you want a ghost for President?
So America has to face this coming election from a very sober position.
How in the world can anyone ever say, “America is the greatest country” when all we have got to show the world are these three clowns as the best leadership the country can come up with in 2008?
Right On Carol Wolman!
From my frame of reference — IMPEACH, TORTURE, THEN HANG!
rcampbell you state that the Bush Administration has slightly less integrity than the administrations of Stalin, Hitler, etal.
I seriously doubt that you can substantiate this. If you focus only on integrity, my guess is that Bush is far and away the number one liar. And he is not very good at it. Are there any historians in this group that can answer the question?
This site just became my first stop of the day.
Wonderful to see people criticizing the powers that be within the Democratic party for what they are, tools of the status quo.
And the bit about Clinton being hooked into the Carlyle Group?? Of course he is. He and Poppy are laughing their asses off as the media rips into Obama like he’s some sort of threat to America or that he’s a breath of fresh air. If he represented any threat to the corporate owners of this society he’d have been gone by now.
Yes, there will be a Democrat in the White House come 2009. After much ruminating I’ve come to the conclusion that Bush/Cheney will go quietly into infamy in 2009. There will be elections and a Democrat will win. Shortly after taking office, that Democrat will announce that Social Security is in grave danger along with Medicare and, rather than attack the inflationary system of health care that contributes to the instability of Medicare, s/he will announce a major overhaul of Social Security, kind of like the overhaul that was engineered to screw middle and lower class Americans who are faced with bankruptcy.
While Bush’s cronies walk away with literally billions of dollars from the Treasury, lower and middle class Americans will be forced into a means-testing system to determine whether or not they should survive in retirement. And no matter who the Democrat is who gets elected make no mistake about it: Social Security will be in the crosshairs.
Clinton eviscerated welfare while pimping NAFTA, GATT, and WTO. Don’t expect anything different from either of the current Democratic candidates.
The long-known Ralph Nader position that both parties in this 2-party “democratic” charade answer to the same corporate masters, and are members of the same plunder-and-loot club of heartless thugs and traitors to the nation- has been amply proven in the last 7+ years of this viciously criminal “administration.”
The soft and corrupt underbelly of the spineless and unprincipled Democrats was thoroughly exposed from the very moment of the massive electoral fraud inflicted upon voters in this country in 2000, aided by a lawless “Supreme Court” (an agency whose criminality makes its function so painfully ironic).
These contemptible, inhuman Democratic enablers of the mass-murdering, Constitution-shredding, obscenely profiteering band of criminals posing as a “government” should go down equally with the R-party gangsters and crooks as the most repulsive bunch of thugs, reptiles and invertebrates known to civilized Man. That list, to me, would include the likes of Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi. They are as much a part of the deliberate mass-murder and (U.S.) government-sponsored terror inflicted upon Iraq and her people, as the clueless psychopath in the WH and his bloodthirsty, criminal enablers. Note that I am not even including revolting Quislings such as Zell Miller and LIEberman. In recent years, the takeover of these United States by the AIPAC lobby is complete, as the utterly horrified world (including many, many humane and caring Jewish and Israeli people) watches helplessly.
At such times, one would normally hope for someone like John Conyers to take a principled stand in order to bring these criminals (who surpass the Nixon bunch by light years in their genocidal crimes against humanity, and deserve trials for massive crimes against humanity) to accountability and justice. Yet, the lure of power (and who knows what else- perhaps hush funds and palm grease?) or fake notions of “loyalty” seem to have usurped all human ideals from the vast majority of these public figures. SHAME, A THOUSAND TIMES, UPON ALL OF THEM! The disgraceful treatment meted out to Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, and the way their campaigns for an honorable return to decency in government was snuffed out by the criminal machinery of this country (corporations + media- A GATHERING OF WHORES whose very faces are deeply repulsive to decent human beings, including the real women known by that appellation)- these do not bode well for the future of this ruthless military behemoth hell-bent upon wreaking death and destruction upon human beings worldwide.
Impeachment and criminal prosecution should have commenced as soon as these spineless Democrats recovered their majorities in the Congress and Senate by falsely claiming to do exactly that prior to the 2006 elections. ALONG WITH THE MURDERERS IN THE WH, THEY TOO HAVE PROVEN THEMSLEVES TO BE ABSOLUTE TRAITORS. There are no words of shame harsh enough for these demons in human form.
James:
“First stop?” We have all long suspected that you have been visiting other sites. No matter, it is great to have you with us!
Wow, Monish Chatterjee. Well said! And James, your prediction about Social Security is right on the money. Or should I say that stack of money.
“Demons in human form”, “thugs, reptiles and invertebrates”, “gathering of whores” “absolute traitors”
WOW, talk about jeremiads!
With emotions like this raging, we might as well roll out the tumbrels!
Capital idea, deeply worried! The tumbrel, now why didn’t I think of that. I emailed Paris and discovered that there are no motorized tumbrels available and you know as well as I that American peasants won’t push or pull anything! The French recommend the Citroen but I fear it is just too small for the task at hand.
d’accord mes enfant.
But on a more humane note…
I suggest we follow the State of Georgia’s lead (see one of JT’s earlier threads on this topic) and use the sentence of banishment for all the malfeasors of the current administration.
Assuming about 2,200 mid and upper level personnel, we could life-banish them to 10,000 acres or so in the Great Dismal Swamp, where they could gainfully pass their time building a new shining “City on a Hill” or more accurately, a shantytown on a tussock!
TS,
I just read your earlier longer post addressed to me…sorry to have missed it; its very hard to keep track of the constant downwardly scrolling blizzard of threads and posts.
I kind of agree with your main point: 2008 is going to be a continuation of a new-bosses-same-as-the-old-bosses leadership no matter who gets elected.
You may be right.
But the key for me is not the guy at top. It really isn’t. It’s the political culture that moves into power and although Washington has an amazing ability to neutralize reformist waves, this year may be something special, because sadly, the economy may be going south for a little while, and that gives the reformers ALOT of leverage. Just wait and see! It will be a very busy first four years for everyone.
I am in agreement with you, deeply worried, that the man/woman at the top is not as signifcant as the political culture that moves into power.
SO.
What are your thoughts of the line up.
John McCain
• Henry Kissinger
• Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state, covert operative and lifelong Bush ally
• Robert “Bud” McFarlane, Reagan/Bush national security adviser, Iran, Contra
• William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard (neocon)
• Alexander Haig, Reagan/Bush secretary of state
• George Shultz, Reagan/Bush secretary of state, Hoover Institution, Bechtel
• Brent Scowcroft, Ford, George H.W. Bush national security adviser
• James Woolsey, former CIA director
• Lawrence Eagleburger, George H.W. Bush secretary of state
• William Ball, Reagan administration Navy secretary
• Colin Powell
Barack Obama
• Zbigniew Brzezinski
• Anthony Lake, Clinton administration national security adviser
• Sarah Sewall, Clinton administration deputy secretary of defense, counter, insurgency czar
• Richard Clarke, Clinton and Bush administration counter, terrorism czar
• Susan Rice, Clinton administration Africa specialist and NSC member, Brookings
• Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer, NSC Near East and Asian affairs, Brookings
Hillary Clinton
• Bill Clinton
• Madeline Albright, Clinton administration secretary of state
• Sandy Berger, Clinton administration national security adviser
• Richard Holbrooke, Clinton administration UN ambassador
• Gen. Wesley Clark, Clinton era Kosovo commander
• Leslie Gelb, Council on Foreign Relations, former State and Defense Department official
• Martin Indyk, Clinton administration Israel ambassador, Brookings
• Strobe Talbott, Clinton administration deputy secretary of state, co, creator of Caspian oil “6+2” group, Brookings
• Jeffrey Smith, former CIA general counsel
To tell you the truth, I’M DEEPLY WORRIED, deeply worried!
Gads!
What unappetizing lineups!
Still, an improvement in most cases over what we have now, so there’s that…
So you see McCain as Bush I redux. Well, we’ve seen worse.
Many of these folks are superannuated. They will never answer the bugles again, methinks. Some of them, I thought, sorry to say, actually deceased!
Anyway, I hope you are wrong here. I can’t drum up much enthusiasm for these rosters and indeed some fear is more appropriate!
DW
DW Superannuate? Far from it! Henry Kissinger’s fingers will have to be pried loose of Machiavellian power plays till his last gasp and my fear is that he will even try and manipulate from the grave!
I wish I am wrong but when I look at the influence of members of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, and apparatuses such as the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Brookings Institution, AIPAC, the Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, I shutter. Ok, let me throw in the Boy Scouts of America as well!
Hillary, Obama, and McCain have all bought into the illusionary “war on terror” and they have all bought into the “manifest destiny” model of conquest to control other people’s territory and resources.
No. I am far from wrong on this one, I’m afraid. But I sure would be happy if I were.
Tube